Archive for February, 2005

A neocon no to Europe

Monday, February 28th, 2005

Robert Kuttner, editor of the American Prospect, praises European developments while criticising neocons in the US.

Gerard Baker, writing in the current Weekly Standard, the neoconservative journal, criticizes the administration’s olive branch and warns that Europe is seeking to become a counterweight to the United States in world affairs. The real European goal, writes Baker, is to undermine NATO, America’s greatest source of trans-Atlantic influence, and to initiate policies of its own that are less bellicose than Washington’s.

A prime example is the joint German-British-French initiative on Iran, which would offer economic incentives in exchange for Iran’s agreement to dismantle nuclear weapons capabilities.

American conservatives have relentlessly disparaged the Iran initiative as naïve or opportunistic.

In fact, the initiative is actually making some headway and may spare us a military confrontation. Prime Minister Tony Blair of Britain, who provided crucial cover for President Bush’s effort to portray the Iraq invasion as the work of a broad coalition, is with the Germans and French this time.

Other neoconservatives take an even darker view of Europe. In National Review Online, Andrew Stuttaford attacks Europe’s proposed new constitution as “an unreadable mish-mash of political correctness” and faults Bush and Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice for being “either delightfully insincere or dismayingly naïve.”

Some on the right believe that the United States should explicitly oppose Europe’s new effort to have a common foreign and defense policy, as antithetical to American interests, and want to actively contain Europe.

Others applaud Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld’s effort to divide the “new” Europe of former Soviet satellites from the “old” Europe of major states that have been our most steadfast allies except on Bush’s dubious Iraq policy. (This divide-and-conquer tactic won’t work. It’s the new European nations that look most closely to Brussels rather than to Washington.)

Especially with EU structural funds on their way. He continues:

European integration has been a core U.S. goal since the Truman administration. President Harry Truman and Secretary of State George Marshall blessed the antecedents of Common Market, which eventually became the European Union.

The original policy goal was twofold. First, contain Soviet expansionism. Second, anchor Germany within a larger, democratic European collectivity. The policy worked, magnificently. Europe, viciously divided against itself for centuries, has knit together into a democratic and civil society.

Of course, Europe developed its own social institutions – universal health care, generous retirement systems, free or subsidized child care for working parents, less commercialized and more robust elections, far less extremes of wealth and poverty, less militarism. And much of the world sees this as a more attractive model than the one the Bush administration is promoting. America, statistically, is slightly richer on average than western Europe, but more than 80 percent of western Europeans live better than their U.S. counterparts because our wealth is so concentrated at the top.

How like the neocons to see Europe’s success as a menace! In the 1990s, the American right disparaged the project of completing a single European market, and the effort to build trans-European social, parliamentary and regulatory institutions. American conservatives ridiculed the idea of a common European central bank and currency, but the euro is a phenomenal success and Bush could take some lessons from Europe’s fiscal discipline.

But Bush has kind of been successful on Egypt, perhaps Syria in the future, and Libya with the help of the UK. Europe has been successful in taking in and 10 countries in one go. Yes the EU economy is semi-ok at the moment, but growth is slow, and the looming crisis with an aging population is not easy to ignore, while the US strides ahead with fiscal ‘indiscipline’, but has meant growth since Bush took office. The deficit now seems set to narrow in Bush’s second term. Europe isn’t getting any younger though.

Why Blogs Are Like Tulips

Monday, February 28th, 2005

William Powers in the National Journal writes:

The market is in love with a bunch of little start-ups that weren’t even around five years ago. Bloggers, one-person media outlets, are the hot darlings of this feverish moment. Like the New Economy stocks of the 1990s, these newcomers are sharp, energetic, and fearless.

Remember all the Internet stocks that were going to change the world and make everyone rich? Blogs are the news trade’s equivalent — without the getting-rich part. Blogs aren’t mainly about money, not yet. They’re about taking power and control away from the old brand names, tipping the bloated sacred cows off their pedestals. Just as establishment media outlets have always dreamed about bringing down presidents, bloggers dream about bringing down editors-in-chief and news anchors.

And he continues:

Still, is this really a revolution? Bloggers are a fantastic addition to the media club, but I don’t see them taking it over. So far they’ve proven adept at several tasks: 1) bird-dogging factual errors and other crimes that the mainstreamers are ignoring; 2) speaking in a chatty, irreverent voice that’s refreshing after decades of stilted establishment formality; and 3) having fun — a skill the mainstreamers lost long ago.

One day this week, I popped in at Gawker.com and happened on a little item that linked the Michael Jackson trial to a particular Simpsons episode in a brilliant new comic synthesis. It was a moment you just can’t have with The Wall Street Journal.

What independent bloggers don’t have is the resources or, in most cases, the skills to do the heavy journalistic lifting that the big American outlets still do better than anyone, and will continue to do for a very long time. You can carp all you want about the toadying White House press corps, but we’d miss them if they were gone — and the bloggers would really miss them.

Slate’s ‘Today’s Blogs’

Monday, February 28th, 2005

Just about every magazine or newspaper should have something along these lines, a daily blog roundup, and I think Slate are doing a good job of it. A short but concise roundup of some of the bigger news stories in the blogosphere.

Rappers and Bloggers

Monday, February 28th, 2005

This article by Josh Levin has been making the rounds in the blogosphere…well linked piece though.

Atlanticist small talk is all that’s left

Monday, February 28th, 2005

Mark Steyn with another piece in the Telegraph…Kevin Drum is pretty damning.

Pouring oil on the East China Sea

Sunday, February 27th, 2005

Some ongoing tensions between Japan and China are detailed here.

Japan has begun planning for the worst. A conflict with China over rich gas deposits in the East China Sea has escalated since late January when two Chinese destroyers entered the area, which has been in dispute for decades. Japan warned China that it would defend its resources there.

But conflict is not inevitable. China’s June 2004 proposal to jointly develop a large gas field that straddles a boundary claimed by Japan is an opportunity to cap rising tension, and at long last harvest the resources in the disputed area.

The East China Sea is thought to contain up to 100 billion barrels of oil – it is one of the last unexplored high-potential resource areas located near large markets. The development of oil and gas in much of the area has been prevented for decades by the boundary dispute. The Japanese government has refused to let companies explore and develop the resources in the area because it says that it could adversely affect relations and negotiations with China on the boundary.

But now China is drilling near the boundary claimed by Japan. Tokyo has officially protested the drilling and is now considering allowing some companies to drill on Japan’s side of its claimed boundary. Just the possibility has been protested by Beijing.

The Life Aquatic

Thursday, February 24th, 2005

I forgot to give some kind of review of The Life Aquatic with Steve Zissou. There’s little I can add to the reviews around the net, besides that I thoroughly enjoyed it, it was full of dark humour, quirky events, and some quite memorable scenes – I think some of the reviews don’t do it justice. Bill Murray was flawless in the role of Steve Zissou, and his dry wit had me laughing out loud at times. Definately worth a look, as long as you remember it is a certain type of humour, similar to its predecessor, the Royal Tenenbaums.

NIB, Enron and the Banana Republic

Wednesday, February 23rd, 2005

There can only be two reasons for this, either the person involved is incompetent and therefore should lose his job or it was a deliberate act and therefore he will be prosecuted.

This was the angry reaction of a federal investigator after it was revealed that some documents had been shredded by an employee of Arthur Andersen, the accountancy firm for Enron. The Enron corruption was discovered in December 2001. A mere six months later Arthur Andersen was found guilty in a court of law of the shredding charge. Subsequently, Arthur Andersen was totally destroyed because of its involvement with the Enron scandal.

Less than two years after the corruption was discovered Andrew Fastow, a financial officer with Enron was sentenced to ten years in jail, the maximum possible, for his part in the scandal. Several others have subsequently been jailed and the investigation is still strong and ongoing. Keep these facts in mind as you read the rest of this article.

In 1998, the High Court appointed two investigators to look into certain activities at National Irish Bank. Five years later they complete a draft report but cannot make it final because they have made ‘adverse comments’ about some NIB personnel. The draft report is sent to NIB so that these people can read what has been said about them and consider whether it’s appropriate or not.

(A little diversion here – The Gardai bust a major drugs operation and compile a report for the DPP. Before actually sending it to the DPP, they post it off to the drugs gang to see if they are happy with their conclusions, the gang peruse the document, make some changes and return it to the Gardai)

It took nearly a year for NIB to consider the draft report, so, six years after the start of the enquiry we have a report. OK, let’s have prosecutions? Sorry, that could prove very difficult as evidence gathered for the report cannot be used as it was given voluntarily. Figure that one out.

Hang on, I’m having a flashback here, yes, Mary Harney, when asked earlier this month why the investigating officer disagreed with her decision to axe the enquiry into companies associated with the Ansbacher corruption replied

Unfortunately, it’s a criminal offence for me or anyone else to reveal anything that comes to light during these enquiries.

(Who makes all these very convenient laws?)

Anyway, let’s bring things up to date. It is reported in today’s Irish Times that the Office of the Director of Corporate Enforcement (ODCE) is in the High Court in an attempt to force the NIB investigators to reveal the names of those who made up NIB’s board audit committee.

What’s going on here? Seven years after the start of the investigation and seventeen years after the criminality at NIB began, a so-called State regulatory body, ODCE has to go to the High Court to force investigators, who were appointed by the High Court, to reveal the names/addresses of some of the people responsible for the criminality. Apparently, according to the investigators, there are points of principle involved in the request for such information. Principles? If so, it will be a first in the Irish corporate world.

Well, you might say, at least ODCE may take prosecutions? No, ODCE is only interested in considering disqualification proceedings against those involved in this major criminality. This means they will be barred from holding directorships, believe me folks, nobody takes this so-called punishment seriously. (By the way ODCE secured TWO prosecutions in 2004 for company law offences, expenditure for the authority was €3.07 million)

Revenue is also considering charges for tax evasion and the DPP is considering charges for fraud. (Please, please, don’t hold your breath).

So, Enron, less than two years after the crime and people are slopping out, NIB, seven years after the investigation began and six months after the bank was found guilty of widespread criminality, we still don’t even know the names of those responsible. Welcome to the (Banana) Republic of Ireland.

Anthony Sheridan

Theft of body parts

Wednesday, February 23rd, 2005

I see the PDs are at it again. Mary Harney, (The minister for stopping enquiries) has announced that the Dunne enquiry into post-mortem practices in hospitals is to cease in less than six weeks time whether the final report is ready or not.

The scandal involves the taking of children’s organs without permission and selling them to pharmaceutical companies. Dozens of hospitals were involved in the secret practice. The history of the scandal takes the usual route common in a Banana Republic. It was set up on a non-statutory basis. This means that nobody could be compelled to give evidence or provide records and of course several hospitals and personnel have taken advantage of this and told the enquiry to take a run and jump. Parents giving evidence were required to sign a secrecy clause preventing them from going public with their stories. The changes made in the FOI also made the enquiry even more secretive. The enquiry has missed several deadlines because of the volume of work involved. Initially Michael Martin (The Minister for reports) said it would be complete in six months.

So, what are to make of this decision to suppress yet another enquiry? Well, the Government will probably say that it is costing the taxpayer too much – €20 to date. Martin Cullen, evoting and about €60 million will be enough to kill that excuse. Perhaps senior counsel Ms Anne Dunne is incompetent? Don’t be surprised if they roll that one out. Perhaps the real reason is that what has been discovered is of such magnitude that, like the Ansbacher enquiry, it’s time to bury it.

This fits in with the Government’s plan after the enquiry is squashed – The Dept. of Health is to commission a new independent expert to draw up a report based on the information that has been gathered by the existing enquiry. This plan is enough to send shivers down the spine of even the most cynical enquiry/tribunal watchers and raises some questions.

How is this so-called expert expected to produce a report when Ms Dunne and her staff who are deeply intimate with the all the details are unable to produce a report at this time? The Dunne enquiry will cease to exist on the 31st of March; does this mean that Ms Dunne and her staff will have no input into the ‘expert’ report? It seem so. Will the report be published or will Ms Harney use the same excuse for keeping the Ansbacher details secret – Sorry folks, it’s against the law to properly inform citizens.

This is my opinion. The enquiry is being gagged because to allow full disclosure would have too many consequences for too many ‘important’ people. The so-called expert will produce a whitewash. There will be some anger, especially from the parents of the children involved but they will be fobbed off and the usual Banana Republic excuses will be mouthed. Yes, it was terrible but it’s all in the past, things are different now, we must make sure that this never happens again, going forward…, blah blah blah

Ms Harney can then confidently depend on her statement during the Sheedy scandal. “The Irish people will have forgotten all about it within a month� Unfortunately for Ireland, she’s right.

Anthony Sheridan

Chief humanising officer

Wednesday, February 23rd, 2005

The Economist did a good piece last week on Robert Scoble, his blog, and how companies can use blogging for public relations. Scoble weighs in after the piece is published.

Greenhouse gases ‘do warm oceans’

Wednesday, February 23rd, 2005

It is being called the most compelling evidence yet:

Scientists say they have “compelling” evidence that ocean warming over the past 40 years can be linked to the industrial release of carbon dioxide.

US researchers compared the rise in ocean temperatures with predictions from climate models and found human activity was the most likely cause.

In coming decades, the warming will have a dramatic impact on regional water supplies, they predict.

Details of the study were released at a major science meeting in Washington DC.

The conference is the annual gathering of the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS).

‘High confidence’

“This is perhaps the most compelling evidence yet that global warming is happening right now and it shows that we can successfully simulate its past and likely future evolution,” said lead author Tim Barnett, of the climate research division at the Scripps Institution of Oceanography in San Diego, California.

Importantly:

The team fed different scenarios into computer simulations to try to reproduce the observed rise in ocean temperatures over the last 40 years.

They used several scenarios to try to explain the oceanic observations, including natural climate variability, solar radiation and volcanic emissions, but all fell short.

“What absolutely nailed it was greenhouse warming,” said Dr Barnett.

Anyone got a better explanation?

Don’t lift the arms embargo on China

Wednesday, February 23rd, 2005

So argues David Shambaugh, and I believe rightly so. He takes us through 5 arguments the Europeans are using to justify lifting the embargo, and basically destroys each one. I’ll quote the whole thing:

In his meetings with European leaders this week, President George W. Bush will try to persuade the Europeans not to lift their embargo on arms sales to China. These are the main arguments he is likely to hear for maintaining it, and how the president should refute them.

First, the Europeans will argue that the “embargo” is nothing more than a sentence in a 1989 communiqué issued in the wake of the Tiananmen massacre. It is not legally binding, and in any event it has become porous and should be scrapped.

True, the embargo is not a complete prohibition on defense technology or component transfers to China. Yet it has largely prevented the flow of lethal weapons to China (certain sales by France are the exception). Moreover, the embargo continues to send a strong political signal to the Chinese government that it has yet to come to terms with its actions of 16 years ago. There has been no official expression of regret over Tiananmen, nor has an accounting, or even acknowledgment, of the 1,500 to 2,000 civilian deaths on June 4, 1989. About 2,000 individuals are still in prison, and hundreds more are in exile.

The second European argument is that exports of lethal weapons and defense technologies to China are under strict national export controls in each European Union member state, as well as under the 1998 EU Code of Conduct. After the embargo is lifted, the Europeans say, a strengthened code will provide an even more restrictive regime on arms sales, and the sales will not exceed the “qualitative or quantitative levels” of last year.

It is true that the existing code needs strengthening, as it largely regulates lethal weapons and component parts but makes no provision for defense or dual-use technologies – which is what the Chinese military is mainly interested in obtaining from Europe. Moreover, the code is not legally binding and allows considerable leeway for national interpretations.

We have yet to see the strengthened code, which has been in preparation for over a year, or the so-called “toolbox” which will be applied to countries emerging from embargoes. EU officials admit that it will not be legally binding, and that it will remain substantially up to each member state to interpret. Moreover, there will be no provisions for dual-use technologies (civilian technologies with military application), which fall under the dysfunctional Wassenaar Arrangement.

The third argument put forward by Europeans is that maintaining the embargo is inconsistent with the overall robust state of European-Chinese relations, and prevents the full “renormalization” of ties. Europeans argue that maintaining an embargo stigmatizes China unfairly, lumping it together with pariah states like North Korea, Myanmar and Sudan, and poses an impediment to deepening EU-China relations.

In fact, Europe-China relations have never been better, and it is difficult to identify any impediments to further improvement. China has not withheld any agreements because of the embargo, although it is likely to reward Europe commercially for lifting it.

Fourth, the EU argues that China’s human rights situation has improved markedly since 1989 and therefore the original rationale for the embargo no longer applies.

Human rights in China have steadily improved since 1989, but that year sets a pretty low baseline. Moreover, China has still not ratified the UN Covenant on Civil and Political Rights; has not repealed legislation governing its draconian reform-through-labor (laogai) camps; continues various forms of religious restrictions and persecution; continues to incarcerate large numbers of prisoners of conscience; will not permit Red Cross access to its prisons; and has stonewalled in human rights dialogues with Western nations in recent years.

Fifth, in an interview with the Financial Times last week, France’s Minister of Defense, Michèle Alliot-Marie, presented a new argument in favor of lifting the embargo: Since China’s domestic military industry will be capable of producing “exactly the same arms” that France has within five years, maintaining the embargo is pointless and “lifting it could be better protection for us than maintaining it.”

This is the most ludicrous rationale of all. With a few exceptions – ballistic missiles, inertial guidance systems, diesel propulsion and a new generation of tanks – virtually all foreign experts on the Chinese military recognize that China’s indigenous military-industrial complex lags 10 to 20 years behind the state of the art.

It is also indisputable that the lack of Chinese access to Western arms markets has demonstrably slowed China’s domestic arms manufacturing capabilities. Whatever modern conventional weapons China’s military has were sold to it by Russia, not manufactured in China. Even Russia has been very careful not to sell China the latest generation of its weaponry, and Moscow has not transferred the means of production to China, thus ensuring a dependency on Russian spare parts and new systems.

At the end of the day, Europe must have a very clear answer to a simple question: Why is it in Europe’s strategic interest to accelerate the modernization of China’s military? Answer: It is not.

Moreover, one does not hear China’s Asian neighbors clamoring for the lifting of the embargo. Far from it. A China possessing real power projection capabilities would radically change and destabilize the East Asian security environment. This is also of deep concern to the United States.

From the American perspective, none of these arguments touch the real issues: maintaining the security of Taiwan and preventing China from possessing European arms that might be used against American forces. This is the argument that animates the debate in Washington, and against which ultimate European actions will be judged.

Lifting the arms embargo on China is ill-advised. If anything, it needs to be strengthened. Both Europe and America can continue to enjoy robust relations with Beijing while maintaining their respective arms embargoes. China will just have to live with it until it comes to terms with Tiananmen and stops putting military pressure on Taiwan.

(David Shambaugh is director of the China Policy Program at George Washington University and author of ‘‘Modernizing China’s Military: Problems, Progress, and Prospects.’’)

U.S. presses Europe to shun Hezbollah

Wednesday, February 23rd, 2005

Europeans did do as requested in relation to Hamas, but now the US is demanding the same treatment for Hezbollah. The European argument for not listing Hezbollah as a terrorist organisation:

…some European countries are questioning whether Hamas should remain listed now that some of its members have won elections in Gaza.

This argument, pressed by Britain and others, is that the best way to lure Hamas leaders into the political process and have them abandon their militancy and their policy of trying to eradicate Israel is to offer the carrot of removal from lists as terrorist organizations.

The Bush administration strenuously opposes any such action. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice was said by U.S. and European officials to have pressed for listing Hezbollah as a terrorist organization in practically every stop in Europe last week.

The Europeans are fearful about the affect it might have on negotiations with Iran on nuclear energy/weapons. The report continues:

The United States has rebuffed European appeals to become more directly involved in discussions with Iran over its suspected nuclear program.

The Hezbollah dispute now gets added to a long list of matters that divide Europe and the United States despite the new campaign that they share broad values of freedom and liberty.

The other issues that should come to the fore on Bush’s visit are the negotiations with Iran over its suspected nuclear program and American opposition to Europe’s determination to lift an arms embargo imposed in 1989 on China.

Also dividing Europe and the United States is the the issue of European support for the Kyoto treaty on global warming and the International Criminal Court, both opposed by the United States, and American opposition to another term for Mohamed ElBaradei as head of the International Atomic Energy Agency.

The ElBaradei case, like Hezbollah, is related to the situation in Iran, because European diplomats are arguing that ElBaradei, a Muslim, is best suited to press the Iranians to cooperate with steps to dismantle its disputed uranium enrichment and plutonium reactor programs.

Watersheds

Wednesday, February 23rd, 2005

Michael Ledeen’s recent article in National Review came up in conversation with some people on Friday night. I found the article through a Roger Simon’s blog, who believes this is something the blogosphere should get behind. Ledeen’s suggestion:

The great political battlefield in the Middle East is, as it has been all along, Iran, the mother of modern terrorism, the creator of Hezbollah and Islamic Jihad, and the prime mover of Hamas. When the murderous mullahs fall in Tehran, the terror network will splinter into its component parts, and the jihadist doctrine will be exposed as the embodiment of failed lies and misguided messianism.

The instrument of their destruction is democratic revolution, not war, and the first salvo in the political battle of Iran is national referendum. Let the Iranian people express their desires in the simplest way possible: “Do you want an Islamic republic?” Send Lech Walesa and Vaclav Havel to supervise the vote. Let the contending parties compete openly and freely, let newspapers publish, let radios and televisions broadcast, fully supported by the free nations. If the mullahs accept this gauntlet, I have every confidence that Iran will be on the path to freedom within months. If, fearing a massive rejection from their own people, the tyrants of Tehran reject a free referendum and reassert their repression, then the free nations will know it is time to deploy the full panoply of pressure to enable the Iranians to gain their freedom.

I just can’t see the mullahs accepting that gauntlet. I think they would rather silence and imprison some bloggers.

Warming trends over the Atlantic

Tuesday, February 22nd, 2005

H.D.S. Greenway, a columnist for the Boston Globe provides this piece on the same subject as Dale. He does make some interesting points that I had not really read elsewhere, at least put in the way he puts it, for example:

Now that the given reasons for going to war in Iraq have proved bogus, the Bush administration has deftly turned the table away from weapons of mass destruction and Saddam Hussein’s Al Qaeda links toward the new horizons of spreading freedom in the footsteps of Woodrow Wilson and Franklin Roosevelt. Thus the reason we went into Iraq is now portrayed as a fight for democracy. Osama bin Laden is seldom mentioned, and somewhere along the way the war on terror has become the war for freedom.

Deftly indeed. No longer is it simply an effort, as Richard Clarke would have wanted, to rid the world of al-Qaeda and stop the fundamentalist Islamic teaching in Saudi and Pakistan. But it is an effort to spread ‘freedom’, using either the threat of force, or actual force. I worry that Bush is using the word so much that it will make it a by-word, and therefore a useless word, for Republican or Neoconservative thinking. And perhaps then become a dirty word in the eyes of many.

Greenway continues:

Prior to the invasion of Afghanistan – which, unlike Iraq, was absolutely necessary for the struggle against Islamic terrorism – Bush told the Taliban he would not attack them if they disgorged Al Qaeda. In short, it was not a war about expanding freedom. It was a war against Al Qaeda. But you wouldn’t know that to hear the administration today.

President George W. Bush has found what his father used to call the “vision thing,” and it is being pulled like a rug over all the mess of Bush’s wars.

Right after the president’s inaugural speech, aides fanned out to say he didn’t plan to enforce too much freedom. And the president doesn’t seem ready to destabilize Pakistan, Egypt or Saudi Arabia for their democratic failings. The big question remains Iran, but Rice did her best to put European invasion fears at ease without taking the use of force off the table.

As did Bush today, saying that it was ‘ridiculous’ to suggest that the US was planning an invasion of Iran, but that all options were on the table. But with Syria and Iran increasingly on the PR radar of the administration, are we not likely to see at least the threat of military force on either country in the lifetime of Bush’s presidency. I would say so.